NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Lester_F

Shareholders have been well and truly shafted. I can't say that I am surprised but I am angry. Anger is a legitimate and reasonable response to this mess.

Anger at those who ran the PMS, anger at those who distanced themselves from the PMS when it turned sour, anger at those who talked about helping, but haven't and most recently anger at a rich old man and his lawyer friend who have used to law to achieve something very far from justice.

totallyletdown

Lester_F wrote: »

Shareholders have been well and truly shafted. I can't say that I am surprised but I am angry. Anger is a legitimate and reasonable response to this mess.

Anger at those who ran the PMS, anger at those who distanced themselves from the PMS when it turned sour, anger at those who talked about helping, but haven't and most recently anger at a rich old man and his lawyer friend who have used to law to achieve something very far from justice.

Is there any truth in the rumours that the directors are going to geg sued ?

I really thought when Dr Carson came in as moderator he would have done more to help, but as has been said before, he talks a good game, but nothing else.

Feel a little isolated, and lost all sense of belonging to the presbyterian church.

BETRAYED

Lester_F wrote: »

Shareholders have been well and truly shafted. I can't say that I am surprised but I am angry. Anger is a legitimate and reasonable response to this mess.

Anger at those who ran the PMS, anger at those who distanced themselves from the PMS when it turned sour, anger at those who talked about helping, but haven't and most recently anger at a rich old man and his lawyer friend who have used to law to achieve something very far from justice.

If some people including solicitors had not advised clients to put large sums into PMS the directors would not have had funds to give out as loans indiscriminately.

If the same people including one solicitor whom I know personally had not advised people to withdraw their funds when an economic downturn appeared on the horizon this sad state of affairs would not have arisen.

Even clever bankers who are now enjoying big bonuses were guilty of indiscriminate lending.

Please note PMS Chairman Sidlow McFarland in the 2006 annual report said, " We were delighted that we gave a dividend of 6% and are hopeful that the present year will continue to offer investors a good return."
Remember dividend and loan interest were paid gross. PMS did not have to deduct tax.

If the administrator pays out creditors some 15 million in March that is 7% capital repayment in one year. No tax to pay. (20m in funds after 16 months)
He can do this after nearly 500K administrator fees and 400K legal fees are paid and before he even sold any of our commercial property.

Flinflon

BETRAYED wrote: »

From above link to NewsLetter 17 Feb.

A SAVER in the collapsed Presbyterian Mutual Society has offered to start a fund for less fortunate fellow members.
Ballynahinch man Jim Kelly has a substantial part of his pension in the society and is willing to donate six per cent of any money he gets back to any members who are not legally owed money by the society.

A number of larger creditors who hopefully understand mutuality will consider supporting Jim Kelly. I shall for one.

That's a very charitable thing for Jim Kelly to suggest, and for Betrayed to endorse. I would personally consider such a donation as well, but I'm a bit concerned.... If savers endorsed this idea en masse, what message might that give to Westminster, Stormont and the PCI? Maybe a quiet sigh of relief from them that 'Well, maybe we'll get off the hook here'. We were betrayed, not so much by our own gullibility, as by institutions that did not do what they should have done (including the above threesome and the PMS itself). So let's not reach for our cheque books (depleted as they now are) until we get the responsible parties to cough up some cash. All our cash, to be specific.

Hatsarehere

Lester_F wrote: »

Shareholders have been well and truly shafted. I can't say that I am surprised but I am angry. Anger is a legitimate and reasonable response to this mess.

Anger at those who ran the PMS, anger at those who distanced themselves from the PMS when it turned sour, anger at those who talked about helping, but haven't and most recently anger at a rich old man and his lawyer friend who have used to law to achieve something very far from justice.

Quite the statements Lester F! With regard to your final comment I would be more careful in future when commenting on things you clearly do not know anything about. I know for a fact the 'lawyer friend' you mention has been working very hard to help sort the situation out and hasnt received a penny for it! Some of your comments could be taken as being defammatory - surely you should know this since you obviously have a VAST knowledge of how the law and justice works.

D.A.

That'll be Arlene Foster losing a lot of Presbyterian votes then. Anyone else listening to her interview on Radio Ulster?

goodbyepci

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7259241/MPs-say-fatal-gap-led-to-Presbyterian-Mutual-Society-failure.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/18/ministers-criticised-over-belfast-based-mutual-society-failure

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/mps-why-did-officials-not-spot-presbyterian-mutual-dangers-14686750.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/northern_ireland/8520462.stm

expat68

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Report-hits-out-over-PMS.6082583.jp?articlepage=1

A link to the full report is also included in the article

The bad news is that JohnMcFall will retire as an MP when the election is called in the next couple of months- he has been a strong voice in Westminster and his support will be missed.

expat68

The report said it was "reasonable to expect the Deti to have taken a lead in identifying the problem".
Enterprise Trade and Investment Minister Arlene Foster said the report was "very short on facts and details".
"All they say is that a remedy must be found, this report does not point to any solutions," she said.
"It's very clear this report was all about apportioning blame.
"It is the shoddiest piece of work I have seen coming out of Westminster for some considerable time."

Worth noting that Arlene has had 16 months to find a solution but has been sitting on her hands waiting for someone else to sort it out - all she has done to date is put it into administration with no thought to the consequences on savers with less than £20K.

If Arlene and Sammy actually had some facts available when they spoke to the Treasury Committee these may have been incorporated into the report. The fact they turned up without doing their "homework" is their own fault.

Flinflon

It is most disheartening to read Foster's response, as quoted in the media, to the McFall report. Clearly, we now see her to be as insincere as she had portrayed herself at the hearing in the Senate chamber. Despite what she says, it was never McFall's mandate to suggest answers to sort out this mess; that's the business of the politicians and the administrator. But finally, we have someone in McFall who has stood up and pointed the finger clearly. And I know some of you may disagree with the need for assigning responsibility, but I feel it's important so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Yes, we want our money back--all of it and soon--but that goes without saying. For now, McFall has hit the nail on the head, pointedly identifying Westminster, the Stormont government (and, by implication, civil servant Michael Bohill--a key advisor in all this, and also present at the hearing) and the PCI itself as being seriously at fault. It is exactly what so many of us have been saying for months. Now.... How do we go about finding justice?